Summary
In Silver v Lynch (283 AD2d 213 [1st Dept 2001]), the First Department reversed the Supreme Court because the Court calculated a base date rent from the date of the "filing of the most recent rent registration statement" instead of calculating a base date rent from the date the rent-overcharge complaint was filed.
Summary of this case from Chiclana v. Division of Housing CommunityOpinion
May 10, 2001.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered April 23, 1999, which vacated respondent's determination, issued May 13, 1998, affirming the order of the Rent Commissioner which had denied petitioner's rent overcharge complaint and determined the base rent date and established the lawful stabilized rent for the subject apartment, and remanded the matter to respondent for reconsideration of petitioner's overcharge complaint consistent with the court's decision, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.
Leonidas B. Bell, for petitioner-respondent.
Martin B. Schneider, for respondent-appellant.
Before: Sullivan, P.J., Rosenberger, Tom, Wallach, Andrias, JJ
In determining that the base rent of $75.35 per week shown in the statement filed on August 12, 1991 is the base rent from which all rent increases under the Rent Stabilization Code are calculated, the IAS court counted back four years from the date of filing of the most recent rent registration statement, April 10, 1996. On that date, April 10, 1992, the last rent registration on file was the 1991 registration filed on August 12, 1991 since the 1992 registration, reflecting a base rent of $245 per week, was not filed until July 13, 1992. However, in so finding, the court misconstrued § 26-516 of the Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of NY), as amended by the New York Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 (ch 116, § 33, Laws of 1997), which, as we have consistently held, precludes examination of the rent history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of the rent overcharge complaint (Zafra v. Pilkes, 245 A.D.2d 218;see also, Pechock v. New York State Division of Housing And Community Renewal, 253 A.D.2d 655). Applying this restriction, respondent correctly determined that petitioner was not overcharged inasmuch as his complaint was filed on April 2, 1997 and the applicable base rent being charged four years earlier, on April 2, 1993, was $245 per week, not the 1991 figure of $75.35 found by the IAS court.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.